Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policyoptions

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:42:28 -0700

> From: Douglas Otis [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> Of course, a script or complaint DNS server generates the 
> added wildcard records, but this may create issues related to 
> revealing nodes within a domain. 

There is no additional disclosure since even with NSEC3 there is always a means of determining that there is a node entry. A query for record type ANY would return it.

> Assuming this disclosure is 
> not a problem, automating this prefix-wildcard RR record 
> would ideally always return the desired policy RR on the 
> first transaction "as if"  
> _policy.<subdomain.domain> contained the policy RRset.  
> Specialized handling for the prefix-wildcard RR in this case 
> would conflict with PTR definitions, however.  As this scheme 
> expects new and protocol specific RR types, defining an RR to 
> support the prefix-wildcard seems appropriate as well.

There is no conflict.

If people want to set up schemes to anticipate requests for additional RRs the regularity of the mechanism described is certainly an opportunity but the argument you make here is essentially 'I never eat Pizza because the beer makes me drowsy, well you gotta have beer to eat Pizza'.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html